Audience of Romans 1 and 2

[mikew]

It seems to me that this is pretty obviously describing the Israelites as they rebelled against God at the time that they received the Law at Sinai and shortly thereafter.

I generally like the observation that the writing seems to be describing Jews. This seems largely true but the text is ambiguous with the mention of idolatry and then seems more descriptive of gentiles in the apparent homosexuality, at least superficially to the modern reader.
I mentioned above that 1:18-32 might be a parody. I should have said that the parody (or rewrite) would seem to be based, at least partly, on Wisdom of Solomon. For evidence of the similarity Douglas Moo directs readers as follows

See esp. Wis Sol. 12—15, The author of this first-century-B.C. Jewish tract details the idolatry and sinfulness of the Gentiels and shows that God's judgment of them is entirely just (chaps. 12—14)

I think you are right that it is about the Jews, but the text borrows from material written about gentiles. (I don't know whether the gentile believers had already made this parody or whether Paul adapted Jewish writings --but I would favor the first option with the idea that Paul incorporated the material into the letter.)

If you make the audience of chapter 1 the Jews who considered themselves naturally superior to Gentiles I think the rest of the argument in the following chapters makes perfect sense.

Nothing is obvious in initial attempts to understand Romans. Earlier I missed saying that Paul used the 2Sam 12:1-9 technique of promoting a judgmental attitude of his audience in order to identify the sin (Rom 2:1 "you that judges are guilty") and then seek their repentance. If it weren't for this, the acceptable interpretations would be more diverse.
Anyhow, working with the idea that the text was about Jews, I simply am saying that the gentile believers were using this text to belittle Jews -- this is just looking at things from a slightly different angle than you have recommended.

[dwilkins]

The most important book I've read on Romans is "The Future of the People of God" by Andrew Perriman

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-People ... s+perriman

He uses the lens of eschatology to point out a transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant throughout the book. I highly recommend the book.

Doug

[mikew]

The most important book I've read on Romans is "The Future of the People of God" by Andrew Perriman

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-People ... s+perriman

He uses the lens of eschatology to point out a transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant throughout the book. I highly recommend the book.

Doug

Thanks.
It will be interesting to see how Perriman has addressed the eschatological issues. From some reviews I see that he has sought to clarify what wrath was being addressed in Rom 2, for example. I have looked some into the treatment of 'wrath' in Romans ... and connections made to the Old Testament (and even New Testament for that matter). Such investigations seem incomplete -- and detach the first century events from the OT prophecies. It seems one of the comments on Perriman's book is that he was willing to investigate the nature (and timing) of such wrath rather than just the typical superficial observations about wrath -- found in many commentaries.
One thing I noticed of Rom 2 is that Paul's wording and his approach suggested that the audience was in fear of a specific imminent wrath.

[Tychicus]

dwilkins: [Regarding Rom 1:18-32] It seems to me that this is pretty obviously describing the Israelites as they rebelled against God at the time that they received the Law at Sinai and shortly thereafter

I'll agree that there are some parallels with the rebellion at Sinai, and that serves as the backdrop for Paul's contention that the Jews are ultimately no more righteous than the Gentiles.

So I would take the "You" in 2:1 to be a Jew who ignored this checkered history of his own people and spent his time judging the sins of the Gentiles. His contempt for God's kindness and tolerance (2:4) is like Jonah who complained over God's mercy to the people of Ninevah; except in this case he was upset that God was showing mercy to the Gentiles, who were entering the church in greater numbers than Jews.

Is this how you read the beginning of Romans 2?

[dwilkins]

I think that's a fair way to say it. I see Romans as Galatians 2.0. The argument has to do with whether or not being Jewish, that is, being a member of the Old Covenant nation, is good enough. I think if you replace "righteousness" with "justification" in most places in Romans you see that the question is being justified by faith instead of membership in the Mosaic Nation. It dramatically simplifies Paul's message and makes the eschatology of the New Testament make a lot more sense in my opinion.

Doug

[Tychicus]

I see Romans as Galatians 2.0

Would you say the "You" in Rom 2:1 is a Judaizer like those in Galatians, wanting Gentile Christians to get circumcised? Or did he have a different agenda (perhaps separate Jewish and Gentile Christian communities)? Or was he not even a Christian at all?

Or is he perhaps a composite of all of the above views (the commonality being an ethno-centric Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament)?

[jeremiah]

Hello Mikew,

You said:

One thing I noticed of Rom 2 is that Paul's wording and his approach suggested that the audience was in fear of a specific imminent wrath.

What exactly about the wording and approach of Paul in Romans 2 suggests that?

[mikew]

Hello Mikew,

You said:

One thing I noticed of Rom 2 is that Paul's wording and his approach suggested that the audience was in fear of a specific imminent wrath.

What exactly about the wording and approach of Paul in Romans 2 suggests that?

I can't present a complete argument to this point in a short response. But I can sketch out some reasons why it seems that Paul was writing to a fearful audience, in the details of Rom 2. And I shall omit the evidence found in other chapters.
Ok. It should be obvious in earlier posts that I've noted the audience was gentile. Also I presented the idea that Paul used 2:1-2 to promote repentance of his audience in the sense that 2Sam12:1-9 showed Nathan seeking repentance from David.

We could say that Paul had opened up a wound in 2:1. He has exposed their judging (which likely was their judgmental attitude arising from insecurities and uncertainty) and said they were without excuse -- removing even the ability to hide behind excuses.
He then mentions that they condemn themselves. (Please excuse some liberties I am taking that arise in the Greek. These will have to be addressed in a detailed analysis ... but would bog us down right now.) Paul is declaring that they condemn themselves in such judging. Paul's words require the audience to be in a situation where they would recognize their own guilt, otherwise his argument would not be influential.
Now in verse 2 Paul presses further by reinforcing the idea that God will come against their actions. He leads the audience into further uncertainty by letting them question their own standing (in vs 3) with the idea "oh no. maybe we won't escape the judgment. Paul appears to let the audience's own fears take the forefront.
Then in verse 4, God's goodness and forbearance are presented as something possibly despised by the audience -- presented only in a rhetorical sense, not as a clear accusation. This forbearance allowed them to repent. If God was exercising forbearance or patience, then this wrath likely was imminent.
I sense that the audience was very nervous about its standing before God. The writing implies that the Roman believers were fearful that the wrath would consume them. So another indication of the nearness of the wrath was that they were so nervous so as to be persuaded by Paul's words. Although some people today might feel fearful of their future, in light of scripture, most Christians that I know of would not be so nervous -- especially for something happening far far into the future.
I could also add that the fact that Jews are distinguished from gentiles in verse 9 is evidence that the wrath was in that era. The Jew-gentile distinction was to disappear through Christ and the old covenant was to come to an end. More evidence on this point arises in verse 12 wherein there was judgment in connection with the law. It would seem odd for such emphasis to be made on the law with respect to wrath if the law passed away in the first century.

The majority of the letter gives evidence to the situation in Rome and the fears and insecurities of the believers there. So the evidence of Rom 2 is not to be examined in isolation -- but this is as far as I can do right now.

[mikew]

I should remind anyone reading my previous post that this analysis is a new proposal ... which makes sense in part due to my starting point of a realization that the intended (expected) audience was solely gentile. The arguments for a solely gentile audience (or similarly, an 'encoded' audience -- ie.. the audience to which the letter appears to be addressed) are fairly new ( a view argued maybe since around the 90s by scholars such as Achtemeier, Elliott, Das and Stowers ).
Also, the concepts on the wrath of God are not common to Romans scholarship. The discussion on Romans 2 does not usually address the specific type of wrath being described by Paul nor do the writings on Romans connect Paul's description of wrath with any specific discussions of wrath in the gospels or OT. I think the points I offered above should give some reason to investigate the nature of the wrath anew -- but I say this without having heard feedback on my proposal.

[dwilkins]

I should remind anyone reading my previous post that this analysis is a new proposal ... which makes sense in part due to my starting point of a realization that the intended (expected) audience was solely gentile. The arguments for a solely gentile audience (or similarly, an 'encoded' audience -- ie.. the audience to which the letter appears to be addressed) are fairly new ( a view argued maybe since around the 90s by scholars such as Achtemeier, Elliott, Das and Stowers ).
Also, the concepts on the wrath of God are not common to Romans scholarship. The discussion on Romans 2 does not usually address the specific type of wrath being described by Paul nor do the writings on Romans connect Paul's description of wrath with any specific discussions of wrath in the gospels or OT. I think the points I offered above should give some reason to investigate the nature of the wrath anew -- but I say this without having heard feedback on my proposal.

Romans, like everything else Paul writes, has a lot of explicit and implicit references to the Old Testament. If the target audience was Gentile, and had only been converted a few years before the writing of Romans, how were they supposed to understand those references if there were no Jews in the congregation? There is no reason to believe that pagan converts would have any idea of the significance of Hosea in Rom. 9-11. And, what's the point of the intro to Romans 7 if there was no one there who'd been raised under the Mosaic Law (AKA Jews)?

Doug